SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Pat) 125

PATNA HIGH COURT
Uday Sinha, J.
Bhola Ram Chaudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2329 of 1983 ;
Decided On : MARCH 29, 1989

Headnote:Khas Mahal - Bihar Land Reforms Act. Sec 3 - Upon issue of notification a Zamindari vest in the Khas mahal is Government estate and turf Government itself - No question of vesting - A lease granted by Khas mahal is operative - A lessee granted by Khas mahal is operative - A lessee is bound by the lease so also his heirs and assignee. (Paras 7 & 9)

       Khas Mahal - T.P. Act, sec 10 - Stipulation in the lease that the property can be transferred with prior permission of the authorities - Stipulation is not ultra vires Section 10 T.P. Act as the ban is not absolute. (Para 10)

       Khas Mahal - Constitution of India, Art 14 - Limitation an alienability of property by lease is not hit by article 14 of the Constitution - Government estate and Zamindari estate were treated on different footing - Khas mahal was a class by themselves - There were two different classes - Same conditions prevailed in all Khas mahal leases. (Para 11)

       Limitation Act - Art 144 Adverse possession - No assertion of hostile title there can be no question of adverse possession - Even where residents have prescribed against the state of Bihar, they can not be sovereign - They will have to pay rent to the states and remain under it - Lessor state is entitled to charge salami for granting the lease. (Paras 13 & 14)

       

Judgment

1. This is an application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by thirteen petitioners. Out of them, petitioner No.12 is said to be the Secretary of a Society known as Bhu Satwa Raksha Samiti, Sahebganj. It is not disputed that it is not a registered society. It is thus not known whether it is one man society or more than one man society. Be that as it may. The petitioners claim to be the residents of Sahebganj Municipality. The prayer of the petitioners is to restrain the respondents from disturbing or interfering with the possession of the petitioners whose names are entered as raiyats in Zamabandi Registers appertaining to Tauzi No. 599 within Sahebganj Municipality and to forbear from compelling such tenants to execute leases on payment of salami.

2. The petitioners have not stated the nature of their right which they claim and on the basis of which they claim that the Deputy Commissioner is not entitled to ejectment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the residents of Sahebganj Municipality are there on the basis of Pattas granted in 1899. Subsequently, pattas were granted in 1931 in which clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 are significant. They read as follows :-

"4. That this lease will be renewable at the option of the lessee on the expiry of the above period for a further period not exceeding (sic) years from the date of expiry of this lease.

5. That you, your heirs, or legal representatives and assignee will be ejected from the land after three months notice in case you, your heirs, or legal representatives and asignees are found to possess any land not covered by this lease or without renewing any lease previously granted.

6. That you, your heirs, legal representatives and assignees shall not by any means or in any way whatever transfer your holding or any part thereof without previously obtaining written permission of the, Deputy Commissioner to do so and without paying such transfer fee that may from time to time be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner or Government.

7. That you, your heirs or legal representatives and assignees shall in no way diminish or in any way injure your holding, but may erect pucca houses on the land for dwelling purposes or golas, and also make garden, sink wells and exercise other acts of ownership not in contravention of the terms of this lease and the binding regulations that are or may hereafter be passed by me or my legal representatives and assignees.

8. That you, your heirs, legal representatives and assignees shall enjoy the fruit of all the trees on your holding, but shall not cut down, clip or in any way injure such trees without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner.

14. That in the event of the infringement of any of the above conditions, I, my legal representatives and assignees shall be at liberty to cancel the lease and evict you, your heirs, legal representatives and assignees at once."

The lease in similar terms was renewed in 1931. The lease was valid for 30 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following three points in support of the petitioners :-

i. Consequent upon the enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act and issuance of notification in terms of sec. 3 thereof, the Khas Mahal, Zamindari, vested in State of Bihar. The Khas Mahal having vested, the stipulations in the pattas/leases evaporated and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue authority had no jurisdiction to call upon the patta holders or their successor to apply for fresh leases more so on paying salami.

ii. The conditions stipulated in paragraph 6 that the lessees were not entitled to transfer the holding or any part thereof without previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner was ultra vires sec. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act.

iii. The lessees from the Khas Mahal cannot be treated on a footing different from other raiyats in the State of Bihar in regard to right of a lessee. Clause 6 of the lease was, therefore, discriminatory and consti





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top